Delhi High Court
Prasun Majumdar vs Uoi And Ors on 16 July, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: July 16, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 4025/2012
PRASUN MAJUMDAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate
and Mr.S.Bhowmick, Advocate.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate and
Dy.Comdt.Bhupinder Sharma,
Law Office, BSF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The writ petition comes up for preliminary hearing today
and pleadings need not be completed for the reason, on the
same cause the petitioner had filed a writ petition before the
Calcutta High Court to which a counter affidavit was filed.
Unfortunately therein, decision against the petitioner was that
Courts at Calcutta do not have territorial jurisdiction. This has
necessitated the instant writ petition to be filed and annexed
as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition is the counter affidavit filed
by the respondents. Counsel states that the matter may be
heard for disposal.
2. The facts even otherwise are not in dispute.
3. In response to an advertisement issued by the Special
Selection Board (CPO) 2002, the petitioner applied and
successfully cleared the written and the physical efficiency
test. Summoned to be medically examined before a Board on
December 15, 2003, the Medical Board found the petitioner
temporarily unfit on the ground of being a patient of High
Myopia B/E.
4. Since it was a case of being declared temporarily unfit,
petitioner, being empanelled in the list of successful
candidates, was issued the appointment letter but expressly
informing that this would be subject to petitioner being
declared medically fit.
5. On September 17, 2004, the petitioner appeared before a
Medical Board at the BSF Hospital in R.K.Puram. Three
specialists: a Physician, a Surgeon and an Ophthalmologist
conducted the medical examination of the petitioner and
founded him unfit. Being an ophthalmologic problem,
respondents rightly decided to constitute a Special Medical
Board consisting of three Ophthalmologists. It was constituted.
Petitioner appeared before the said Special Medical Board on
October 20, 2004 and was declared unfit. Eye condition was
recorded 'High Myopia - Retinal degeneration changes with
mocular degenerative charges see - both eyes.
IMP.=PATHOLOGICAL MYOPIA - Both Eyes'.
6. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
high myopia from which the petitioner was suffering stands
cured and requests that a Review Medical Board be constituted
with a direction that petitioner should appear before the Board.
Counsel urges that if Board opines petitioner to be fit,
directions be issued to the respondents to permanently absorb
the petitioner. Counsel states that if the Board were to found
petitioner unfit, petitioner would concede that that would be
the end of the matter.
7. We are afraid we cannot resort to such procedure as
suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. The reason is
obvious. A Writ Court is concerned with an issue of procedure
of law being followed and fairness in the decision making
process. Facts noted herein above will evidence that the
petitioner was subjected to medical examination thrice; the last
time by a special medical board and at the relevant time the
petitioner was found to be suffering from an eye related
problem as afore-noted. The petitioner seeks appointment as
an Assistant Commandant in BSF where the requirement of a
perfect eye-sight is essential.
8. The petitioner may be meritorious but in matters of public
appointments, depending upon the nature of service, medical
fitness has to be given due importance.
9. The petition is dismissed in limine.
10. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
JULY 16, 2012
dk
